Is U of C still "Gritty"?

Cue7 · June 30, 2009, 1:09pm

I’ve posted opinions on how the Chicago of today is quite different from U of C even as recently as 7-8 years ago. All the talk on the board about comparing Chicago to other schools and Chicago winters and the like has got me wondering: Is Chicago still a “gritty” sort of a school?

In the past, whenever people asked me about Chicago, I’d often describe my experience as valuable, rigorous, and gritty. What I mean here is that when I was at the U of C (I graduated in early 2000s), there was kind of a restlessness at the school. We were back in the day of the 60% accept rate and a significantly lower US News ranking (we were around 15 I believe when I was there), and I felt students had a bit of a chip on their shoulder. Similarly, Chicago always had a lot of young scholars looking to cut their teeth, so there was a hungriness at the teaching level too.

After Chicago, I spent time at two of the U of C’s Ivy League peers (Brown and Penn), and I was struck by the difference in atmosphere. While Brown and Penn are structurally very different from one another, both schools seem to have a bit more of a complacent feel. When it came to jobs or opportunities after school, I oftentimes heard the phrase, “Relax, you’re at Brown - everything works out,” or, “Relax - you’re at Penn - what do you have to worry about?”. That sort of rhetoric simply never existed during my time as an undergrad at Chicago.

Again, Chicago seemed to be a hungrier, perhaps little more insecure, and more intense environment. I liked it because I felt everyone was trying to improve themselves and prove something. At Brown and Penn, I got a little more of the sense that everyone felt they had already arrived.

Does Chicago still have that “gritty” feel? I’m aware that Chicago is very different now. The existential crisis the school faced when I was there (“What is to be done about the core??!”) has passed, the school’s finances are back in order, and there is no glaring disparity in admissions strategies now between Chicago and its brethren. Moreover, I think this year’s graduating class will be the first to see Chicago keep its place in the US News top 10 for four consecutive years. So now I’m wondering, will the phrase “Relax - You’re at the University of Chicago,” be used more in common parlance around Hyde Park??

JHS · June 30, 2009, 4:57pm

From a parent standpoint, a lot of what you say rings true, although I’m not certain I would describe it as “grittiness”. Certainly, among my children and their friends – people who tend to be on the boho, humanities-oriented fringe of the University – there’s 0 sense of complacency about jobs or the future. No one expects anything to be handed to them because of their association with the University of Chicago. Their experience is more that they are regarded as objects of curiosity because of that. When my daughter interviewed for an internship with a music-oriented magazine a few years ago, halfway through the interview the Editor-in-Chief stopped and mused, “You know, I haven’t had anyone from the University of Chicago apply for this in years. You really are a lot smarter than the other kids I see.” I think that’s what they expect – to open doors themselves, to have a little bit of mystique, and to be able to deliver the goods. Of course, they barely talk to anyone like an econ major, where the attitude may be different. A few people they know are confident, but generally on the basis of family connections, not UChicago.

My wife and I often compare our children’s experience at Chicago with our college education at a HYP college. We think the academic, intellectual experience at Chicago is equal or superior to what we got – and that’s very high praise, we thought our educations were great – and that socially it’s pretty similar – also high praise. Where it falls a little short is in another aspect of what you call complacency. As college students, we felt completely plugged in to the Establishment. We had great, unique internships; everyone was Going Places; each of us was only a couple phone calls away from an introduction to anyone we might ever need to speak with. We didn’t feel intimidated or mystified by power at all. At Chicago, the students do seem to feel detached from all that, on the outside looking in, even though they are practically at Ground Zero of the Obama Administration.

The social atmosphere does seem to have changed a lot in a short time. I have heard my kids compare notes with a pair of cousins who are 10 years older and also went to Chicago. They barely seem to be describing the same institution. Some of that is personality. Their cousins are from a small midwestern college town, and the city of Chicago made them uneasy. They describe an atmosphere of lonliness, isolation, and fear, only partially alleviated by Greek organizations. My kids have vibrant social lives and tons of nonacademic activities. They aren’t lonely or isolated at all.

Shempi · June 30, 2009, 5:30pm

now i’m only a lowly pre-frosh, but when i visited the school during the admitted student days in march, it seemed “gritty” as hell. that was probably the first thing that came to mind the moment i stepped on campus. the kids were serious about schooling, and stressed out. one of the kid’s host didn’t come to meet him until about 9:00, when he stumbled in, disheveled and tired, saying he was studying in the library the entire evening. then he showed the kid his room, w/ literally nothing in it besides a pile of dirty laundry on the desk, and told him to sleep on the bed because he wasn’t planning on sleeping that night. then he left, muttering “f***ing bio major, ya know?”

THE END

also, why is it that U Chicago’s old boy connection isn’t as strong as say, harvard, yale, princeton, or dartmouth? I have also had that feeling as well.

JBVirtuoso · June 30, 2009, 5:45pm

^Think of the stereotypical UChicago student. Now think of the good ol’ boys scene of the Ivies. Do you think a UChicago student wants to be any part of that? I’m probably not even that typical of UChicago, and I can tell you that I want no part of a good ol’ boys’ culture. If I get a good job, I want it to be because of my own achievements. Therefore, the alum network is going to be automatically less coherent than it is at Ye Olde Ivy University.

Would you also say that the safety of the area has also improved greatly in this time? If UChicago had the safety issues it had even fifteen years ago, I would have only gone there after some serious consideration. Is it possible that the reduction in crime has contributed to the reduction in grittiness?

Cue7 · June 30, 2009, 7:27pm

Hey everybody,

Thanks a lot for the thoughtful responses. JHS, you spot the key issue masterfully: at least when I was at Chicago, there was a distinct feeling of being outside the Establishment. This feeling led to Chicago’s “gritty” atmosphere. Before spending time at other schools, I was completely unfamiliar with the phrase “relax, you’re at X school - everything works out.” If anything, I felt that my peers and I at Chicago had to work twice as hard to keep up with our Ivy League counterparts because we were on the outside looking in.

It was an interesting phenomenon because even then, by any measure, Chicago was such a superb institution. As and undergrad, I interacted quite a bit with the Chicago Law students, and I was struck by even their “hungriness” or their need to prove themselves. The law students I met at Penn - by any measure, Chicago’s subordinate in the law school food chain - exhibited none of this type of hunger. By in large, they were complacent, happy with where they were accepted, and they realized that benefits would be conferred upon them because of the name on their diploma.

JHS, it’s interesting you mention that your daughter - despite her excellent schooling and abilities - does not seem as “linked in” or a mere “phone call away” from Going Places. In many ways, I’m up in the air about whether a sense of complacency is desirable.

I do think, though, that Chicago would benefit from a bit more of a feeling of being linked into the mechanisms of power. At Yale, I know a phrase called the “magic escalator” exists - the fact that their mere entry into Yale somehow magically leads to superb exit options after college. I’m not one to advocate a sense of entitlement, but I do think it’s surprising that this feeling does not seem to exist at all at the U of C. In some ways, perhaps Zimmer’s quest to give Chicago more social cachet - and build bridges to the avenues of power - is a good move.

Shempi - in terms of WHY Chicago isn’t linked into the power structure, Jerome Karabel’s “The Chosen” does a great job of explaining of how elite educational institutions support and maintain a type of power hierarchy. In short, in the early 20th century, Harvard, Yale, Princeton etc. took the view that a certain baseline of intelligence, coupled with myriad social factors (generally meaning “proficiency in athletics”) led to the highest chance of gaining power and status in society. Put another way, being smart but also being able to be “part of the team” - showing a certain type of social acumen - paid dividends down the line. In time, this strategy of looking for leaders began to build upon itself. As Harvard etc. produced more and more leaders and important social figures, these powerful individuals then looked back to the school for fresh talent.

On the other hand, I always felt that Chicago completely eschewed this outlook when devising their own goals for an undergraduate college. Pretty much since its inception, I think Chicago looked more to finding students “the faculty would love to teach”. Now, part of this is through historical contingency - the faculties at harvard and yale often lamented the indifference toward academics that many students demonstrated during their undergrad days. Since Chicago was a younger school and the faculty had more sway, the faculty could accordingly swing the pendulum in the other direction - and find more of the types they’d enjoy teaching.

At the end of the day, pure intelligence and academic merit is not the surefire way to achieve power and status. A look back at several of our presidential elections can tell you that. In many ways, training the intelligentsia - Chicago’s goal, does not correlate to preparing students to take positions of power.

Ok - I apologize for the rambling nature of this post. At this point, I’m just thinking out loud. The recent talk of the tough Chicago winters, and hearing the phrase “relax, you went to X school” has got me thinking.

I guess what I’m trying to say is this: I get the sense that Chicago’s brethren (Harvard, Yale, etc. specifically) are grooming their students to occupy positions of power and leadership. There’s an implicit understanding at those schools that not only will you have access to a world-class education, you will then be equipped with all the other tools necessary (connections, networks) to achieve success. At Chicago, I never felt this sort of undercurrent at the school.

There are of course benefits and drawbacks to both paths. Chicago still stands as the “purest” academic institution because pretty much everyone is at Chicago to learn - and not to use it as a launchingpad to something else. On the other hand, Chicago certainly does not facilitate access to power commensurate with its standing as a school.

colleclassof2013 · June 30, 2009, 8:31pm

From what I’ve have seen while visiting University of Chicago, the students at Chicago are definitely more intellectual than those at HYP. One reason why I believe that many students at Chicago don’t become the future “leaders” of our country is because many of them are not very social or in other words do not exhibit the typical characteristics of a leader such as confidence, drive, etc. You mention that the students at HYP are complacent while many at Chicago are not and this could be attributed to the students self-confidence. A good example would be Caltech. No one can deny that the student at Caltech are just as intelligent as those at HYP but there is a distinct difference between the two student body; those at Caltech have almost no leadership qualities or social skills. This is like an extreme analogy for University of Chicago and HYP.

Cue7 · June 30, 2009, 10:42pm

Colleclassof2013 - I definitely think there’s some truth to what you say. I’m wondering whether the recent significant changes in Admissions - the appointment of Jim Nondorf (a sort of prototypical, inquisitive Yale product from what I’ve heard) as admissions head, and President Zimmer’s new directives for college admissions - will change that.

I’ve said this in past posts, but I do think the lack of social acumen hurts some Chicago students, especially when it comes to interviewing (esp for med schools). In many ways, the U of C is still coming out from under the shadow of old President Hutchins’ decision to abolish football. Chicago is definitely in flux now, and I’m curious to see how things play out.

I do think, too, that an influx or more preference given to those that show leadership capabilities would serve the U of C well. Right now it’s all about the three Is (intellectual horsepower, intellectual curiosity, intellectual promise), but I think Nondorf and the admissions committee should broaden Chicago’s goals a bit.

U of C college presidents in the past have complained of the lack of “robustness” in Chicago’s undergrad population, and I think this could be another area of improvement. The sports scene, for example, could be improved. Now, I’m certainly not advocating a return to D1 sports, but I do wish there’d be more accountability on the DIII level at U of C. We accept lackluster athletes and do quite poorly on the DIII level, and I think the institution of a winning culture (or again, at least more accountability) on the DIII level would be good. Perhaps the coming of the 2016 Olympics to Chicago could here here…

JHS · June 30, 2009, 11:44pm

Part of the answer as to why Chicago doesn’t have the plugged-in quality of HYP is doubtless its admission preference (in the past) for pure academic nerds. That is reflected in the alumni study done a few years ago that, compared to Ivy alumni, Chicago alumni were disproportionately in academia or government bureaucracy. They are successful by most measures, but relatively few of them are rich or powerful. But there’s another, simpler answer, too. For many years, Chicago was much smaller than they at the undergraduate level. In the 60s, I believe (it may have been a little earlier), the College got down to under 500 undergraduates per class. As the current ruling generation – the Boomers – were being educated, Chicago was teetering on the edge of getting rid of its College altogether, because it was not attracting enough students to be viable. Chicago had about as many students then as Williams or Wesleyan – and unlike the students at Williams and Wesleyan, a lot of Chicago’s graduates felt very ambivalent about the University. They thought they had gotten a great education – everybody always agreed about that – but they had been miserable while it was happening. And they had not had the kinds of extracurricular institutions that bind students to their alma maters – no Wiffenpoofs, no Tiger Inn, Skull & Bones, Porcellian, Lampoon, Dramat, etc.

It has been a long, steady, and very successful climb back. Sometimes with controversy (Hugo Sonnenschein), and sometimes not (Don Randal), the University has steadily strengthened and grown the College. (Dean Boyer, he of 0 charisma, deserves a huge amount of credit for this.) And it is benefiting enormously from the insane competition for admission to HYP. Harvard, Yale, and Princeton used to have a virtual monopoly on smart, ambitious leader-types, but now they (and Stanford) have to let a lot of them pass by. So it has been possible for Chicago to change the character of its student body somewhat relatively easily, because there are more Ivyish students available than the Ivies can handle.

I applaud President Zimmer’s attitude that “We are going to be the best university period. Not the best in the Midwest, or the most intellectual. The best.” The Chicago Economics Department doesn’t whimper and surrender when it hears Harvard’s name, why should the Admissions Department? Obviously, it’s not there yet, and the goal is a long way off, but it’s the right goal, and working towards it will continue to improve the University, including the College.

That doesn’t mean that Jim Nondorf’s job is to turn Chicago admissions into a clone of Yale’s. Chicago has its own character and traditions to sell, and in some ways they are more distinctive and more admirable than Yale’s. Chicago is going to continue to attract engaged, somewhat geeky, academically minded undergraduates, but more of them are going to be starting clubs, putting on shows, remaking publications, getting down. And I think the University and CAPS have been working hard to create the kind of apprenticeship networks that the Ivies enjoy. Over time, Chicago students are going to be far more plugged in.

silverturtle · July 1, 2009, 12:14am

I think you may be ignoring the fact that Chicago is simply not well recognized outside of academia compared to the Ivies. I live in Illinois, and most of the people with whom my father works were not aware that Chicago was a private school. Most thought it was the shorthand for the University of Illinois - Chicago.

This occured a few years ago, but it nonetheless underscores my point.

silverturtle · July 1, 2009, 12:18am

“those at Caltech have almost no leadership qualities or social skills”

I think this should be ackowledged as an extreme generalization.

Cue7 · July 1, 2009, 12:21am

JHS - In thinking about it more, I wholeheartedly agree. Of course, I wish Zimmer had more of the warmth and charisma of Randel, but overall, I think his goal is correct. He also seems to have done a pretty good job so far - he’s a pretty intense and thoughtful guy, and can be fierce in his debate at times from what I’ve heard. That seems to convey the message of Chicago pretty well.

When I was at Chicago, students and administrators applauded the “quirkiness” of the place. Zimmer, I think, disdains that sort of characterization because it places the U of C in too much of a niche. The terms he uses to describe the school are always broader and more sweeping. He seems to advocate using general superlatives when describing the school - calling it a “powerhouse” or emphasizing its unabashed strengths. I think as Chicago continues to grow from strength to strength, this sort of rhetoric will become the norm.

In the past, I think Chicago undergrads at times had a bit of insecurity and perhaps a bit of meekness that reflected the weaker nature of the College. As Zimmer said in his inaugural address, the College has - of late - enjoyed a renaissance, and I think it is timely for the U of C to tackle the goal of being “the best university, period.”

Cue7 · July 1, 2009, 12:29am

Silverturtle - I’m not as concerned with general brand recognition, because there really only are maybe a half-dozen schools that command national recognition. Lots of people have no idea what Penn is, and if you talk about Columbia in the south, they may think you’re talking about a school in missouri.

The point isn’t to establish bland broad recognition, but to make sure the word is out for those the U of C is actually interested in recruiting. Nondorf, with his background in student outreach, should do a great job on this front. The other issue is then to recruit and retain students - and couple them with a smooth administration committed to their success - that allows linkages to the key avenues of power, across fields. Most people have never heard of Williams or Dartmouth either, but these schools offer a disproportionately broad number of benefits to its students and alums. Chicago needs to get on board with this sort of directive, and I think many of the administrative changes are helping the school get there.

Cue7 · July 1, 2009, 12:32am

Silverturtle - put another way, broad recognition can be distinct from impact. Amherst, Williams, Dartmouth, etc. all have tremendous impact, but not tremendous recognition. Claiming the U of C needs to be more well-known is too simplistic a response. Heck, around the Chicago area, I’m sure Northwestern is a much more known commodity than the U of C, but it doesn’t outpace its peer in the South Side by any tangible measure.

(This isn’t a slight at Northwestern - I like the school a lot, but it just shows that just because a school has more recognition in the broad community doesn’t mean it also has more of an impact or confers more benefits on its graduates.)

Another note, trying to increase the brand recognition of the school could be a costly and wasteful use of resources. The best way to do this quickly would probably be to re-institute DI sports and play in a big conference. This would make waves and get the word out about the school, but it’s a terribly risky, expensive, and unneeded enterprise.

As discussed before, the key practical way to change the social cachet of a college are through admissions practices. They have been changing quite a bit of late, and I expect they will change even more in the future. I would like to see these changes come with changes in the student body - such as the implementation of more of a winning culture in the DIII sports program. I feel like this sort of culture could then imbibe the student pop. with more of a sense of confidence and drive. This is another conversation for another time though.

colleclassof2013 · July 1, 2009, 12:36am

Addendum to my previous post: while Chicago may not produce many future leaders of tomorrow, it is still without a doubt one of many pristine academic universities in the world. With the change in admission director, I’m sure Chicago will see some good changes in the student body.

“I do think, too, that an influx or more preference given to those that show leadership capabilities would serve the U of C well.”

Without a doubt this will do U of C well. Personally I love reading stories about students that go out of their way to do good for the community by raising money or dedicating their time for a worthy cause. I don’t really know how much charity and volunteer work U of C students do but one of the reason why I chose my university, UCLA, is because it has very active student body dedicated to helping others. This in return gives a good image to the university.

In high school I always admired this one particular student that dedicated so much of his time to helping the school and others. But what made him even more likable was his charming personality. He’s a very good friend of mine and an even better leader. It amazes me how he keeps up with all the schoolwork while spending so much of his time volunteering and playing sports. So really what I’m trying to say is that leadership qualities are desirable in all situation whether its employments, interviewing, relationships with others, etc.

With all this said, I’m not saying that all students at Chicago lack leadership because I met a few students who were very outgoing and gregarious. I think this slight lack of social etiquette may be an inherent part of the university. I think all the schoolwork that is given by the university causes the students to lose out on the socializing and partying that goes on in many other university. Also isn’t true that Chicago facilitates individual thinking? Well anyway, all this probably adds up to why Chicago has this “gritty” feel.

Cue7 · July 1, 2009, 12:45am

Colle - I think Chicago is getting there. Teach for American is now one of the biggest recruiters on campus. Michelle Obama started a superb community service center. The U of C has started partnerships with local public schools, and students are serving as mentors more and more often through this.

Again, none of this was really present when I was there. Obama was still kind of an unknown commodity, the community service center was just getting set up, and there was kind of a block between the U of C and the rest of the community.

For more info on Obama’s community service center, go here:

<a href=“University Community Service Center”>University Community Service Center;

silverturtle · July 1, 2009, 12:23pm

“Silverturtle - put another way, broad recognition can be distinct from impact”

You are right, but in Chicago’s case, it is not.

Cue7 · July 1, 2009, 1:32pm

So silverturtle - do you disagree with what JHS has said and I’ve argued? I think you’re too quick to dismiss what the U of C has done of late. Chicago seems to be making positive steps forward, and has changed significant over the past 7-8 years. I think Chicago’s impact since I’ve been there has improved, whereas the broad recognition for the school hasn’t really changed much. I don’t think schools like Chicago, Dartmouth, Penn, Williams, etc. will every have truly national recognition to match the top half-dozen schools. At the same time, I think Chicago has made significant structural and administrative changes to increase opportunities for its undergrads.

My key point in identifying this issue is looking at ways to improve the school. Again, just saying U of C doesn’t have “enough brand recognition” is way too simplistic and not particularly helpful. The changes JHS identifies speak more to what Chicago’s doing as it looks to the future.

Thoughts?

silverturtle · July 1, 2009, 1:39pm

I fully agree about the steps toward improvement. My point was confined to the idea that recruitment of top students has to be a much more active process than at schools where name recognition alone attracts many top applicants. I have no information on whether Chicago is doing this well.

JHS · July 1, 2009, 1:46pm

Chicago is in a weird spot re brand recognition. Among education and policy elites, world-wide, it couldn’t have MORE recognition. It is completely accepted as one of the 20 or so truly world-class universities in existence. So there’s not a whole lot to be done there, and not a whole lot that COULD be done. Then there’s a layer of people who are reasonably sophisticated about U.S. universities, who recognize it as a quality brand, much like Dartmouth, but don’t really know much else about it. And for the masses, it might just as well be invisible, even in Chicagoland. Not “an Ivy”, no sports teams on TV, and they don’t remember anything about When Harry Met Sally except the orgasm scene. (“Proof”? Faggedaboudit.)

I’m not certain anyone outside the Admissions Office cares about the last category. I’m sure the lack of recognition there suppresses application numbers to the college, but I’m not certain that it really suppresses applications from people who are likely to be admitted and to enroll, since most of them ought to be at least in category two anyway.

Cue7 · July 1, 2009, 1:56pm

I’ve always been ehhhh about any movements to increase Chicago’s broad brand recognition. Schools certainly need to improve their level of brand awareness and reputation with the groups they’re targeting (top high school seniors, promising younger hs students, top grad students, etc.), but trying to increase broad brand recognition is a futile exercise. Again, from what I’ve found, there are maybe only 5-6 schools with true national brand recognition. Then there’s a big drop off.

I think Penn (College of A&S) is actually a great example of a school that has strengthened its reputation among key target groups, but its broad-based recognition hasn’t really changed much. When I was a hs senior back in the mid-90s considering Penn, relatives of mine away from the mid-atlantic didn’t know the difference between Penn and Penn State. Since then, UPenn has improved markedly - keeping a high us ranking, improving the neighborhood around the school, intensifying its admissions efforts, etc. At the same time, when I visit relatives in Ohio or North Carolina or where ever now, after doing grad work at Penn, most people still have no idea what it is. It’s definitely on the radar, though, for top hs students now. I’d imagine the case is pretty similar for a Dartmouth or Williams or Rice or whatever.

Is U of C still "Gritty"?

CONNECT WITH US